Skip to main content

About your Search

English 34
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)
from the director of central intelligence agency, that references of al qaeda were taken out for security reasons not for political reasons. do you accept the explanation by ambassador rice? >> i don't believe that the best intelligence assessment on 16, september was that there was a spontaneous event in benghazi based on a video that led to a mob that became a riot. the cia station chief on the day of the attack reported in realtime we're under attack by al qaeda affiliates. the president in libya said on the day of atack -- excuse me on 16, september, al qaeda was involved. we've got drones. released the video. we know what a mob looks like in the mideast. i am increasingly convinced the fbi interviewed the survivors in ramstein, germany, the day after and convinced that the best and current intelligence assessment on 16, september went against the video. the video was a political smoke screen. the actual facts were this was a coordinated preplanned terrorist attack. when the president said on "letterman" we think the video caused this. when he said at the u.n. we won't le
tonight. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: you begin the book with a raid on an al-qaeda commander named muthana which led to the treasure trove of information that took us there. explain how there are little bits and pieces that created the web of the successful raid. >> that was the raid that general mcchrystal has cited as probably the most significant in the war in iraq because it basically delivered up a database of about 500 names of al-qaeda fighters who had come to iraq through syria. so not only were they able to take apart that organization by identifying all those folks and finding them, it also illustrated that the movement, the al-qaeda movement in iraq was primarily a foreign movement not an indigenous. that's one of the things that helped to turn the sunnies getsal al-qaeda. >> eliot: and you highlighted that they would use it and form and see linkages that might not have been possible to see many years back using new software and computer techniques that began to create--sort of out of a science fiction movie where you say these are the links these are the bank it's a and
it a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an antimuslim film and did not mention the link to al qaeda. after all this taking on her critics, the republican senators weren't impressed. >> bottom line, i'm more dist b disturbed now than i was before that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong. >> rice maintains she did nothing wrong. issuing a statement saying we stressed that neither i nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the american people at any stage of this process. peter brooks is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, general wesly clark and, of course, former democratic presidential candidate. senator mccain was asked who do you blame more at this point? ambassador rice or president obama? he says the president is ultimately responsible. do you agree this is no longer about susan rice? she has cleared the air about her name? >> i don't think so. i mean, i'll let the senator speak for himself, i wasn'
denied al qaeda's lead role in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that cost the lives of ambassador chris stevens and three others and she did so knowing it was true. well, the man who defeated mccain in the 2008 presidential campaign takes this as a personal shot at him. how will he respond? will he name ambassador rice his new secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? will he meet mccain's challenge head on and send rice up to the capitol to go face-to-face with the enemy? tonight we study the battlefield and the firepower of the two sides in this year-ending fire fight. mccain sure wants this fight, but do his fellow republicans? do they want an older white guy taking on the competence of a young woman of color, a rhodes scholar of solid reputation? most important, what end does the president want for this match of fact and wits? i'm joined by michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution and jonathan landay. the intelligence reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. michael, thank you for this. i want to get to the facts. am i right, is the main charge here coming fr
senators tuesday it was the fbi that took references to al qaeda out of these unclassified talking points rice used for her tv appearances. but later in the day morell called to say he was wrong. it was actually his agency, the cia. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours and that's totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we now have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> reporter: it is quite surprising that the acting cia director gave incorrect information on something as politically explosive as the controversial talking points that susan rice used in a meeting with among the administration's chief republican critics. you know, the answer to why he did it according to senators is simply that he misspoke, wolf. >> so a quick question, dana. does that mean michael morell if the president were to nominate him to become the permanent director of the cia he would have problem
there and david petraeus came along and said there are reasons why they took out the al-qaeda stuff from the talking points that rice delivered on the air and i think that argument among the elites is kind of prevailing and i think that it means that if the president does appoint-- i think the confirmation goes quickly. >> not everybody agrees though. maure maureen dowd rights when a gang shows up with rpg's in a place of hot bed sympathizer and extremist training camps. >> it's not over a movie. she should have been savvy enough to wonder why the wily hillary was avoiding the talk shows. and the dop diplomate needs to show more sensitivity and independence traits clinton has demonstrated in abundance and obama can do better at state than susan rice. >> and an article called susan rice term -- >> i was disappointing in the president, what she's said about regime change in african and countries and not looking more to her resume'. >> let me pull up a point on racism and sexism business. it never cuts the other way. liberals can criticize conservative african-american as conservative black
who is saying, oh, it's me. i sent rice out there and i took out all the al-qaeda stuff. i'm not buying it. none of this adds up. mccain isn't buying it. are you buying it? >> i'm not buying it because the chairman of the intelligence committee said a week ago in classified testimony that same clapper said that they had no idea who changed the talking points and now a week later he says he did? that's kind of strange. >> bill: a lot of lying going on here. >> i mean, i've seen amnesia in my day in my clinical days and that one is pretty quick of the one week. >> bill: okay. again, i know you don't play a psychiatrist on tv, but there has got to be a reason behind this. any theory on what's behind this crazy stuff? , this there are a lot of theories, burr all i know is that in the ends, the narrative spun by susan rice and continued by the president afterwards for days and days afterwards on letterman and elsewhere was that it was a riot out of control because they didn't want the country to know that obama's boast that al-qaeda was on its heels was simply not true. he kept
't involved in removing the information on al qaeda. he said the intelligence community made the changes. in responding to this report, mccain admitted that he was wrong, but still took a shot at the white house. he said intelligence officials, quote, told us they did not know who made the changes. now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so suspicious of actions of this administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. meanwhile, his sidekick, lindsey graham, is going into full attack mode. senator graham wrote a letter to president obama on tuesday, saying that he's concerned. many questions remain unanswered on the benghazi attacks. he says the president has a duty to the american people to answer the basic questions surrounding the benghazi attack. so far, all of the right-wing conspiracy theories about the benghazi attack have been completely wrong. it's about time they dropped all of this nonsense and just went back to doing their jobs. let's bring in democratic consultant, tara doudel, and also with
that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy and clearly the impression that was given was wrong. ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. said't understand the cia clearly that information was wrong and they knew by the 22nd it was wrong yet they have not clear that up with the american people to date including they said this was the reaction to to the video, the attacks. what troubled me also is obviously, the changes made to the unqualified talking points were misleading. just to be clear, when you have a position where you are ambassador to the you knighted nations, you go well beyond -- unitedador to the nations, you go well beyond talking points. in addition to, it is not just the talking collins, but clearly it is her responsibility as an ambassador to the united nations to do much more than that. >> before anyone can make an intelligent and decision, we need to do a lot more. to this date, we do not have the fbi interviews of the survivors from after the attack. we do not have the basic information about what was said about the night of
the fbi removed references of al-qaeda from the talking points, but at four o'clock eastern time today, cia officials said morale misspoke and that, in fact, the cia deleted references, not the fbi. stay tuned, as they say. joining us now, former u.s. ambassador not united nations, john bolten, andrew mccarthy, former federal prosecutor who convicted the blind shake, and the author of "spring fever." great to have you both here. andrew, your reaction to what is playing out in the nation's capital. this is the nation's capital -- capital of a superpower; right? >> so they say. a lot of misspeaking going on, it would appear. you know, look, it's been obvious from the start here that they tried to play out the idea of this video nobody saw of this being the cause of the atrocity of what happened in benghazi in which four, including our ambassador, were killed. it's important to get to the bottom of it, and getting to the bottom of it, a comedy of error, should not obscure the fact this is a major advocation by the commander in chief who did not take action in a seven and a half hour siege
! >> stephanie: the original assessment of the benghazi attack was it was carried out by al-qaeda affiliated groups. he said that analysis was taken out after an interagency review in favor of a more general review that they did not tip off terrorists to u.s. knowledge of the matter. we already covered this. general petraeus and now other intelligence officials are just -- you know, making it even clearer. so let's see. john mccain, lindsey graham, blah blah, have accused the white house of stripping for political reasons. the director of the c.i.a. and now current intelligence officials have said no. intelligence agencies changed it not the white house. i don't understand why we're even talking about this still. let's see. he said the intelligence community made substantial analytical changes with the talking points were sent to the government agency, partners for their feedback. there were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community. period. another anonymous official ec
briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. and then the up classified talking points gave a very different impression. the person who delivered those talking points was susan rice. she said something republicans believe wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic. why would she know it wasn't true? and second of all -- >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right, but the point is, intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of intelligence can be both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, and so if you were given one set of talking points that are classified and then a litter iteration that are unclassified, do you go back to the cia and say you guys are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here, and there are reasons why you would want to obscure the fact that we would know who the terrorists were, if there was -- >> which is petraeus' argument. >> i don't necessarily buy that either. but the point being at the time, the intelligence comm
calls from burma. we have dramatically changed. i can tell you again al-qaeda is on the rise and they're moving throughout the middle east and americans are -- we're going to have to pay a very heavy price for it because of the lack of american leadership. >> you know, michael he mentions kissinger from the '70s. he mentions baker from the '90s burma isn't even what the country is called anymore. is he totally out of touch? >> the last large scale -- the last figure in america who had an impact in israel was bill clinton. he almost got a peace deal. bush didn't do much. condoleezza rice failed to do something. and this is where the obama administration has leaved himself exposed. he never went to israel. i think now is probably not the time to get involved there but i think he's going to have to, in the second term, especially if these incidents show, they're going to try to do some middle east peace deal again. >> yeah, i mean you know, in addition to all of this which is a much more local conversation, we ne
a halt to it. now the president makes phone callscalls from burma? i can tell that you al-qaeda is on the rise and they're moving throughout the middle east, and we'll pay a very heavy price for it because of the lack of american leadership. >> you know michael, he mentions kissinger from the 70s, baker from the 90s and burma, that's not even what the country is called any more. is he totally out of touch. >> the last political figure-to-have any impact in there was clinton. bush didn't do very much. condoleezza rice didn't do very much. he has never been this israel. i think probably is not the time to get involved there. but in the second term, they'll have to continue to show that they're going to do a middle east peace deal again. >> in addition to all of this, which is local conversation, we need to think in a broader sense. there is no moral voice, and until we have that unquestionable moral voice with an honest broker as well as spiritual dimension, this is not going to evolve. >> it does the president see this as an opportunity to be the moral voice that tricia talked ab
to do with them. and they are the ones who removed any mention of al qaeda, not the white house. the president defended ambassador rice at his cabinet meeting today. listen. >> susan rice is extraordinary. couldn't be prouder of the job she has done. [ applause ] >> shepard: while the president has not nominated anybody to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. she has said she will not stay on for the second term. but the president has called criticism of ambassador rice outrageous and told her critics to go after him instead. that may be what is happening. catherine herridge in the d.c. newsroom tonight. catherine. >> thank you, shepard. rice has met with six senators, five republicans and one independent so far. she has apparently failed to reassure them that she is a responsible choice for secretary of state and not as one critic said drinking every drop of the administration's kool-aid. >> the president is going to have to make the decision about who he nominates to be secretary of state. hopefully it will be someone that is able to both show independence but have t
that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to distinguish more effectively between an al qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians. >> that is the defense of the obama administration today. in essence that this program is so targeted it saves civilian lives. what do you say to that in your case? >> well, i think it's very hard to assess that kind of claim without more information. information that the administration refuses to release. it's very easy for administration officials to make claims like this when there's no possibility that they're going to be held to account for the claims, no possibility that some court is going to order them to disclose information, no possibility that they'll be sksd foll -- asked follow-up questions. part of the reason we are in court asking judges to enforce the freedom of information act, asking judges to disclose more information is to allow the public to better assess the kinds of claims that the administration is now making, usually through unnamed officials in leaks to favored media. >> jodi, do you think this is the area where we've seen pe
in may 2003 that we found the wmds in iraq. dick cheney and condoleezza rice talked about links to al qaeda in iraq. you've never made up for those huge, serious, significant lies in the arena of foreign policy. and now you're picking apart, you know, basically the very early and ultimately not misleading with regard to foreign policy decisions, statements that this diplomat made. >> one thing we're learning right now the meeting with ambassador rice and senator corker is happening as we speak so a little earlier than that noontime appointment. but the one thing we heard also from senator barrasso in the last hour was john considerry's name floated out and it would be easier for him to sail through. you had the opportunity to work with john kerry before. >> sure. >> when we hear about this, is that really what the game, as joy-ann said, this machiavellian game, basically let's get kerry in this position and then scott brown could take over his seat, run for that seat in massachusetts, we get scott brownbach in? >> this is a little delicate because i know so many people involved. this
took out al-qaeda talking points after originally saying he had no idea who did it. so who should we really believe? maybe santa can help us. nope. instead we got michael goodwin. you can find his columns in the "new york post" and fox news. who is telling the truth and who is lying? >> look, you ask who we should believe? i think no one. that's the whole point of putting people under oath. then supposedly get the truth or we get perjury. i believe susan rice had to know better before she made those comments. i just recently reread president obama's speech to the u.n. where there is no question he is saying the video did it. all of that was false. they all had reason to know it was false. clapper is just a clown. i mean, he does this all the time. and the idea that james clapper can take responsibility for making the changes, why isn't president obama furious at him? why doesn't president obama fire him today if the president really believed that clapper made a huge mistake? >> gretchen: that's a loaded question because as director of national intelligence to say one thing and then s
against al-qaeda and the enemy, but also about erstwhile allies and really mapping the human terrain. >> along that path there had been the hunt for osama bin laden and the first idea for drones came in, and then armed drones. tell us a little about that and why you and your team pushed for that. it was really a product of great frustration, because we had these human sources, these networks in afghanistan reporting on bin laden, on his whereabouts, and we in turn were passing this on to the policymakers in the white house and the department of defense, but we could not get the authorities or the resources to go and engage with lethal force against bin laden. this was pre-9/11. >> uh-huh. >> and they said we needed greater verification. so we looked at all types of technical solutions. we looked at balloons, long-range optics and finally decided on the drone, the predator drone. and can then we, sure enough, driven by our human sources on the ground we found bin laden, very clear video. we knew exactly where he was, farm near kandahar, and then we reported the intelligence. and the r
the latest campaign approach against the widening al qaeda geographic threat. and the increased use of special operations forces to combat the threat. [video clip] >> this campaign against al- qaeda will largely take place outside declared combat zones using a small footprint approach that includes precision operations, partnered activities with foreign, special forces operations and capacity building so that partner countries can be more effective in combating terrorism on their own. wherever possible, we will work through and with local partners supporting them with the intelligence and resources they need in order to deter these common threats. for example, in mali, we are working with our partners in western africa who are committed to countering the emerging threat to regional stability posed by aqap. fourth, in support of these kind of efforts, we have to invest in the future. in new military and intelligence capabilities and security partnerships. our new defense strategy makes clear that the military must retain and even build new counter-terrorism capabilities for the futur
to. it wasn't only collecting intelligence against al qaeda and the enemy, but other allies and mapping human terrain. along that path, there had been the hunt for osama bin laden and the first idea for drones came out. tell us a little bit about that and why you and your team push for that. >> it was really a product of great frustration because we have these human sources -- sure enough, driven by her human sources on the ground, we have found a modern. a very clear video, we knew exactly where he was near kandahar. we reported the intelligence and the response was that the missiles will take several hours and where will he be several hours from now? at that point, we said that we would have to do it ourselves. can we attach these missiles to a drone and that is what compelled the cia to put this program together. when 9/11 transpired, that is why the cia had drones as well. >> as you look back at on it now, drone worker has increased probably well beyond what you saw at that time. on balance, was the right thing? a questionable thing? heavyweight at? is any tool and weapo
this growing asymmetry of power and not just al qaeda, hezbollah was the cyberspace, but it can be very positive, too. the next is bill gates a nonstate, look what he's done and how he's contributed. zucker berquist is to develop a society of a billion people network. there's been a positive examples if you look at the asymmetry of power. i won't nonstate at yours and increasingly this complex, global, integrated that oldfield or marketplace. such is the nature of war and risk we have to understand better. secondly, cyberspace. my good friend, general mike hayden has talked about the coming pearl harbor in cyberspace and i agree with him. it's going to happen and we are willfully bug prepared. the third area i was stressed is the growing demographic shift worldwide. for the first time as of last year more people live in cities and that trend is accelerating. if you like in societies like africa, what does that mean in terms of demographics or resources? these changes will accelerate and we need to be better prepared for the across-the-board. those are three large general chunks we shoul
, what happened is he told the senators that it was actually the fbi who took al qaeda references out of the unclassified talking points. only to call back several hours later saying, oops, i was wrong, it wasn't the fbi, it was the cia. here is what lindsey graham said about that. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours. and is totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi. and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> so what these meetings least this particular issue has done is added fuel to the fire and it is not like, you needed to add any more fuel to the fire, especially for senators like lindsey graham who is already really publicly outraged about a lot of issues dealing with the benghazi attack. >> this is just one more. one more. dana bash, thank you. >>> after trashing the hit tv show "two and a half men," the actor angus jones, now back tracking from his controve
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)